What I find striking about this article is the false rendering of the opening analogy " offering a grain of incense" in contrast to the early martyrs, who would not offer incense to the false gods of Rome.

The analogy by my reading does not hold, since, unlike the false gods of pagan Rome, who had been officially ruled by the teaching authority of the Church to be in fact false gods. Contrast this with the case of the present claimant, benedict xvi, no official ruling has occurred; Ergo- good Father Cekada's line of reasoning seems to fall starting with the title, not to mention the first sentence onward.

In Xto,
Vincent

Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:37 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

Frank Gale wrote:

This group of priests seem determined to convince others of their position.

Yes, well apparently the motive is overpowering, because the result is the largest collection of the false application of principles I think I have ever seen in a traditional Catholic document. What a stupendous mess.

He has achieved the severity, but not the charity, because the truth is lacking. Charity without truth is vain; but faith without charity is dead. His severity rests entirely on confounding the mistaken sedeplenist with the heretic with whom he mistakenly remains in communion; or, what is the same thing viewed from a different angle, he confounds the mention of an uncondemned heretic (who is also not seen to be a heretic) with the mention of a man already condemned by the Church. Upon this quicksand the whole case is built. A case which, if it were true, would lead to the conclusion that no acceptable worship was offered in the whole Church for several years in the 1960s, and possibly even for over a decade. This conclusion is of course heretical.

Which would be one of the reasons that Fr. Cekada and the few who agree with him didn't like this theory for more than a decade after Bp. Guerard des Lauriers invented it in the early 1980s.

Anyway, at least Fr. Cekada has now put his own case. That is a step forward.

A grain or two of burning incense, held rather closely to this article until it ignites, would produce an "odor of sweetness"

AMW

Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:03 pm

Dominic07

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pmPosts: 20

Beautiful words from Bishop Dolan's bulletin.

O Lord, banish from my heart envy, self-love, and pride; give me grace so to know Thee and myself that, in contemplation of Thy majesty, omnipotence, love and wisdom, and other perfections, I may love Thee above all things, and in regarding my own nothingness, misery, and sins may always humble myself before Thee, and be little in my own eyes. Grant also that I may judge my neighbor with justness and tenderness, and love him as myself.

In the Two Hearts,
Dom.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:42 pm

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

An extract from Tolerance, by Rev. A. Vermeersch, S.J., Doctor of Laws and Political and Administrative Science, and Professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law. Translated by W. Humphrey Page, K.S.G., Privy Chamberlain to H.H. Pius X.

"...A private individual has no right to accuse another of being in error - by which is meant religious error - except after mature deliberation. He has no right to speak in the name of the Church. He is not infallible, and cannot without presumption claim for himself any special orthodoxy. He must avoid the self-conceit which sometimes disguises itself as religious zeal, the attachment to his own opinions which may be the motive of his ardour in preaching submission. Does it not seem sometimes - in the case of the condemnation of a published work, for example - as if the writer cared less about being on the side of authority than having authority on his side? On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the decisions of the Church or the Holy See lay down directions which must not be exaggerated or overstrained, but which a loyal Catholic will refuse to evade by quibbles or minimizing interpretations.

In the perplexities which arise in such circumstances, how useful it is to listen to the counsels of toleration! Be just, they say to each of us, and see if the man or the work in which you detect errors does not show too much Catholicism to fall under suspicion. Be equitable, and in case of doubt give your brethren the benefit of that presumption of correctness which is laid down in the oldest laws, and of which St. Ignatius writes in these express terms in the beginning of his spiritual exercises: "Every good Christian is more eager to justify than to condemn a statement of his neighbour; and if he cannot justify it, he asks the author for an explanation. If the author explains it ill, he corrects him with charity; and when that is not enough, he endeavours to the best of his power to find an acceptable meaning which will save the proposition." History itself attests the opportuneness of this caution: rigorous judgments, though long accepted, are reviewed by the light of fresh study. A more careful examination sometimes shows that time-honoured imputations of heresy rest on expressions badly used, badly understood, or badly translated.

Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church. The bitterness of some men's writing is very exasperating, and irritation will sometimes bring down a tottering structure which a little kindness might have saved. What would have become of Abelard without the gentleness of Peter the Venerable? Charity has good, not evil, for its object; it would rather win hearts by gentleness than humiliate them by an assumption of superiority. Be courteous; in the fight against error treat your adversary with deference. And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation.

We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit. In our own day especially, when men love to make a show of sincerity, and when so many honest but mistaken souls are yearning for the truth, let us count Christian loyalty as one of the most powerful influences to induce men to accept the gift of faith. Defective arguments weaken sound propositions; false statements embitter disputes, perpetuate controversies, multiply misunderstandings, and give an opening for crushing rejoinders. An arrogant and uncompromising tone in an author makes men reluctant to listen to his arguments, and anxious to see him proved to be wrong. We do not establish a truth by showing that there is little evidence to support it; we cannot eradicate error by making it look like truth; and we cannot hope to persuade a reader if we begin by exciting his antipathy. There is much sound sense as well as humour in the words of St. Augustine: "Wolves sometimes disguise themselves in sheep's clothing, but that is no reason why sheep should change their skins.” Those victories alone give glory to Christ which are won by the weapons of Christ, for these are the weapons of justice.5 To wish for no other victory, we need great self-control, perfect confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, zeal untainted by unworthy motives; and this self-control, this confidence, this zeal, enhance the private virtue of tolerance, and invite the admiration of all men."

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:09 am

eliz carroll

Beautiful post, Wills! Puts me back on the right track!

Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:58 pm

Dominic07

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pmPosts: 20

Mr Lane,

You distinguish between condemned and uncondemned heretics. How do you respond to Fr. Cekada's refutation of that distinction?

Quote:

B. No Official DeclarationObjection: Anyone who has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. But Benedict XVI has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic. Therefore, Benedict XVI may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. Therefore, a sedevacantist is permitted to assist at a Mass where his name is so mentioned.(1) The hidden assumption behind the major premise is false. As we have seen above, de la Taille says: “This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).”79 The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.” 80 It did not then add that no sin occurred if “undeclared” heretics and schismatics were commemorated. Nor in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV forbade commemorating schismatics and heretics in the sacred liturgy, did he limit the prohibition to “declared” heretics and schismatics.81(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period.82 They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…

In the Two Hearts,
Dom.

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:43 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Dominic07 wrote:

You distinguish between condemned and uncondemned heretics. How do you respond to Fr. Cekada's refutation of that distinction?

Fr. Cekada claims to have noticed a hidden assumption in our distinction, as though we were so shallow as to have based our views upon a legal loophole rather than upon sacred doctrine. Such an error is precisely what those sedeplenists do who cite Pius XII’s constitution regarding papal conclaves as evidence that excommunicates (and therefore heretics) may become popes. Such an argument demonstrates a failure to grasp what is at issue.

Fr. Cekada is therefore accusing us of equivalent shallowness and ignorance. He is claiming that we think that the only reason that one may not cooperate in sacred matters with heretics is because of their excommunication. This is not true, although in one sense and at one level, there is a truth in it. That is, we are subject to the Church and we do what she commands. That is, for us, the ultimate criterion.

Fr. Cekada’s own argument contains a hidden assumption. He equates Ratzinger and the like with condemned heretics or members of condemned sects. Now, it is true that one must treat one’s Uncle Wesley as a condemned heretic, at least insofar as sacred worship goes, but this is not because Uncle Wesley is actually a heretic. It is because Uncle Wesley is a member of a sect which has been condemned by the Church. Uncle Wesley is presumed by the law of the Church, to know that the sect of which he is a member has been condemned. And therefore he is presumed to be obstinate against the Church.

In the case of those who have not joined condemned sects, but who have instead themselves disappeared into heresy, one must form one’s own judgement about them. There is no presumption in ecclesiastical law upon which one can or must rely. This may be felt to be frustrating, but one must keep in view that usually the Church’s machinery for dealing with such cases is intact and she can act relatively quickly to separate such men from the flock.

Fr. Cekada ignores this element of the law, and tries to gloss over it by pointing out that the Church does not restrict her prohibitions against communcatio in sacris to condemned heretics (or vitandi), but in doing so he misses the point. Members of sects condemned by the Church are treated by the law as in many ways equivalent to those who have themselves been condemned by name.

Fr. Cekada has the problem of trying to make unlawful something against which there simply is no law – viz. a layman assisting at Holy Mass offered by a priest who has failed to see that the man recognised as pope by the entire hierarchy of the Church is in fact not really the pope (at least “formally”…). He first prejudices the reader by flattering him – “we all know it’s wrong, but not all of us can say exactly why. Our instincts are good…” (paraphrase). He asserts that it takes about ten seconds to work this out. (He fails to consider that he is implicitly condemning himself and most of those he wishes to flatter by making this claim – it might only take ten seconds for our hypothetical neo-sedevacantist to work this out, but it took some decades for real sedevacantists to notice the problem.) Then he flips the onus of proof – “some have tried to justify assistance at such Masses, but their excuses aren’t convincing…” (paraphrase). A neat trick, but hardly effective, as he implicitly admits by proceeding to attempt to show that there is in fact a law against what real sedevacantists have always done. Ten reasons, there are, why we ought to deprive ourselves of worship in common with fellow Catholics. Not one – ten. He expends some effort explaining that even an SSPX priest who doesn’t mention Benedict’s name in the Canon is very naughty, with the unstated implication that you ought to avoid his Masses too.

There is a story about two neighbours. One calls across their dividing fence one Saturday morning, “Hey Tony, may I borrow your lawnmower please?” Back comes that reply, “No, I’m afraid all the flights to Sydney are booked out.” The first looks puzzled and queries, “What has that to do with borrowing your lawnmower?” Tony walks across to the fence, smiles, and says sweetly, “Look, if I don’t want to lend you my lawnmower, one excuse is as good as another.”

Fr. Cekada doesn’t want you to go to the SSPX. He has ten reasons. One would suffice - if one sufficed.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:22 pm

Dominic07

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pmPosts: 20

John Lane wrote:

In the case of those who have not joined condemned sects, but who have instead themselves disappeared into heresy, one must form one’s own judgement about them. There is no presumption in ecclesiastical law upon which one can or must rely.

Thank you for your reply.

One further thing. Isn’t the heretic who has not yet been condemned in an analogous position to the “Uncle Wesley” who might not personally be a heretic, but who belongs to a condemned sect? After all, the uncondemned heretic has refused to accept the Church’s defined teaching. Why can’t we say that he is as clearly obstinate against the Church as “Uncle Wesley”?

In the Two Hearts,
Dom.

Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:21 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Dominic07 wrote:

Isn’t the heretic who has not yet been condemned in an analogous position to the “Uncle Wesley” who might not personally be a heretic, but who belongs to a condemned sect? After all, the uncondemned heretic has refused to accept the Church’s defined teaching. Why can’t we say that he is as clearly obstinate against the Church as “Uncle Wesley”?

Well, we can say that, because it is true. We might even say more – the open heretic is, generally at least, more clearly obstinate against the Church than Fr. Cekada’s Uncle Wesley.

But that’s beside the point. We are not here examining whether or not we ought to “judge” heretics (we can and may), or whether we ought to avoid them (we may and ought to do so, within reason). We are examining a couple of distinct questions – whether there is any ecclesiastical law forbidding us from worshipping with them, and whether there is any ecclesiastical law forbidding us from assisting at a Mass at which a Catholic priest names a heretic claimant to the papacy as pope.

I say that there is no ecclesiastical law forbidding us from worshipping with uncondemned heretics who have not joined a condemned sect. Fr. Cekada hasn’t cited any such law, and cannot do so. His argument is effectively from silence. He would also be aware that the question of worship in common is currently (i.e. prior to V2, amongst sound Catholic theologians) subject to some dispute because of the extraordinary decision by Rome to permit the saying of an Our Father publicly with non-Catholics. He would have read this article, for example: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5883#5883 Selective quotation of 18th century Holy Office decisions won’t suffice to settle the matter.

Be that as it may, there is no shadow of a law which prohibits worship in common with fellow Catholics on the grounds that those Catholics have remained provisionally in communion with men we have personally identified as heretics. Even if such a law were desirable or useful, and not as pernicious as it obviously would be, formulating such a law would be a nightmare of jurisprudence, pregnant with innumerable difficulties. It would perhaps be a salutary exercise for Fr. Cekada to attempt to formulate it. If nothing else will open his eyes, that might.

Now, there is a law which all Catholics know and must accept, which is that they are bound under pain of mortal sin to assist at Holy Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days. This is a very strict law, and therefore any excusing causes must be grave. Fr. Cekada has offered us no fewer than ten excuses for missing Mass. I don’t find them convincing. Therefore I think that I am clearly still bound to fulfil my duty.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:03 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

I would just like to offer a few observations:

(1) Let's focus on discussing the issues at hand. We don't have to go look for moral faults in the people involved in these discussions. These issues stand or fall on their own intellectual merits. Let's evaluate arguments, not personal conduct.

(2) Fr. Cekada's target audience for the Una Cum article is sedevacantists - i.e., people who are already convinced that Fr. Ratzinger isn't the Pope of the Catholic Church. In his essay, he seeks to demonstrate that sedevacantists cannot go to una cum Masses without, objectively, committing grave sin. For example, he shows that by assisting at such a Mass, you are ipso facto agreeing with the falsehood that Benedict XVI is the Pope of the Catholic Church, a man you yourself believe to be a heretic or an apostate. While perhaps the priest who offers the Mass may not realize this, you do, and you are offering the Mass with the priest. But you yourself cannot "take out" Benedict's name if the priest includes it. Ergo, your offering of the Mass necessarily includes its union with Benedict. I find this argument convincing. Perhaps someone else can refute it, but as it stands, I find it convincing.

(3) Regarding "Uncle Wesley" - are we saying that if someone believed just like Uncle Wesley did, but never officially joined the Methodists (say he just frequented their services, while retaining the label "Catholic"), then a High Requiem Mass could be said for him?

(4) What may have been difficult to see in 1967 is still a bit different forty years later. If people like John Paul II and Ratzinger XVI don't fit the idea of "public heretic," I'm not sure who would. John Weiskittel's 1993 article "Voodoo You Trust?" is perhaps one of the best pieces of literature to convince people to be sedevacantists by the sheer force of the facts:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/voodoo_you_trust.htm

God bless all,

Mario D.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:53 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

(1) Let's focus on discussing the issues at hand. We don't have to go look for moral faults in the people involved in these discussions.

We are not here examining whether or not we ought to “judge” heretics (we can and may), or whether we ought to avoid them (we may and ought to do so, within reason). We are examining a couple of distinct questions – whether there is any ecclesiastical law forbidding us from worshipping with them, and whether there is any ecclesiastical law forbidding us from assisting at a Mass at which a Catholic priest names a heretic claimant to the papacy as pope.

I get your point. What I think here is that since "there is no ecclesiastical law forbidding us from worshipping with uncondemned heretics who have not joined a condemned sect," I could act based on the spirit of the law forbidding communicatio in sacris with heretics.

Quote:

Now, there is a law which all Catholics know and must accept, which is that they are bound under pain of mortal sin to assist at Holy Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days. This is a very strict law, and therefore any excusing causes must be grave.

On this thread Catholics Assisting at a Valid Indult/Motu Mass?, it was said that one could legitimately avoid a valid Indult Mass solely in order to avoid the danger of subjecting one's family to the danger of perversion. Is there any specific law excusing one from Mass based on this ground, which would nevertheless be encouraged and is yet very subjective?

On the so-called "Una Cum Masses", these are my thoughts:

Father Cekada's article gives the impression that when a Mass is said with Ratzinger's name inserted in the Canon [let us assume Ratzinger is a declared heretic], the following grossly erroneous (to say the least) affirmations result:

Quote:

* That the heretic Ratzinger is not only a true pope, but also a member of the true Church. * The heretic/false pope Ratzinger is “the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter.” * The acknowledgment of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon is “the chief and most glorious form of communion” with him, “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” * The inclusion of the name of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon specifies him as “the principle of unity.” * Mentioning the name of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon is a sign that one is "not separated from communion with the universal church.” * The mention of the name of the heretic/false Pope Ratzinger in the Canon “is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.” * The heretic/false pope Ratzinger is the “ruling Pontiff, the visible pastor and the authorized intermediary with almighty God for the various members of his flock.”

Second, Fr Cekada clearly states that the attendee of such a Mass participates in, and fully assents to, the Canon (+ the consequent affirmations).

So, I could personally [granting the objection of the absence of any binding ecclesiastical law in this matter pending Fr Cekada's response to this] decide I do not want to have to participate in:

Quote:

* the pernicious lie * the profession of communion with heretics * the recognition of the one-world church * the implicit profession of a false religion * the violation of Church law [well, until I see Father's response here, let us assume Ratzinger is a 'declared' heretic] * the offering of Mass with Ratzinger * the recognition of a usurper * the scandal [this would be great when traditional catholicism spreads in Nigeria with "professed" sedevacantists hearing Masses of "professed" priests under Ratzinger]

I understand Mr Lane says no law obliges us to so act, but I personally consider these implications very grave to partake in, and thus excuse my non-observance of the "Sunday Obligation." So where am I missing it?

Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:18 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

(1) Let's focus on discussing the issues at hand. We don't have to go look for moral faults in the people involved in these discussions.

I understand Mr Lane says no law obliges us to so act, but I personally consider these implications very grave to partake in, and thus excuse my non-observance of the "Sunday Obligation." So where am I missing it?

I would say that at the very least, Fr. Cekada has raised sufficient doubt to make the Una Cum Mass a doubtful affair, i.e., doubtfully licit to attend. But when in practical doubt, we must not act.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:24 am

eliz carroll

So that leaves us with how many options now? Are we being warned that we will not be saved if we assist at an "una cum" mass?

What should rich Catholics do with their spare cash, now that they can stay home ? How will they support the Church?

Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:37 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

Vince Sheridan wrote:

What I find striking about this article is the false rendering of the opening analogy " offering a grain of incense" in contrast to the early martyrs, who would not offer incense to the false gods of Rome.

The analogy by my reading does not hold, since, unlike the false gods of pagan Rome, who had been officially ruled by the teaching authority of the Church to be in fact false gods. Contrast this with the case of the present claimant, benedict xvi, no official ruling has occurred; Ergo- good Father Cekada's line of reasoning seems to fall starting with the title, not to mention the first sentence onward.

Hey Vince,

I don't believe that your objection holds, because the reason why the martyrs couldn't offer one grain of incense isn't simply that the Church had officially condemned the false gods or the false sect. The reason was that these false gods were, well, false gods. I don't think it was the Church's declaration that made it a mortal sin to offer incense to them - implying that, had the Church not done this, it would be permissible.

God bless you.

Mario

Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

eliz carroll wrote:

So that leaves us with how many options now? Are we being warned that we will not be saved if we assist at an "una cum" mass?

What should rich Catholics do with their spare cash, now that they can stay home ? How will they support the Church?

Hey Elizabeth,

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to. There are plenty such priests around, relatively speaking. The rich Catholics in question can support sedevacantist seminaries so that more priests will be produced who leave Benedict's name out of the canon.

God bless,

Mario

Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:15 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

austinmarie wrote:

I get your point. What I think here is that since "there is no ecclesiastical law forbidding us from worshipping with uncondemned heretics who have not joined a condemned sect," I could act based on the spirit of the law forbidding communicatio in sacris with heretics.

You can do whatever you like. I'm not trying to convince you. I am defending myself and others from Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn, who have taken it upon themselves to inflict their Guerardian ideas on the sedevacantist public. If you find their arguments convincing, you should act in accord with them and stay home alone, if that's necessary.

austinmarie wrote:

On this thread Catholics Assisting at a Valid Indult/Motu Mass?, it was said that one could legitimately avoid a valid Indult Mass solely in order to avoid the danger of subjecting one's family to the danger of perversion. Is there any specific law excusing one from Mass based on this ground, which would nevertheless be encouraged and is yet very subjective?

Well, the moralists say that any "moderately grave inconvenience" excuses from the Sunday obligation. This must be understood correctly. I'm not advising anybody. If I was to offer advice, it would be to get to Holy Mass and receive the sacraments as often as possible.

austinmarie wrote:

Second, Fr Cekada clearly states that the attendee of such a Mass participates in, and fully assents to, the Canon (+ the consequent affirmations).

Yes, I know. His problem is that despite the facile attraction of such an assertion, supported as it is by irrelevant quotes carefully sculpted from their context, nobody seems to have noticed the problem until Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was hunting about for a hard-line counterpoint to his decidedly soft-line "material pope" idea in the early 1980s. Nor do most sedevacantist clergy accept this assertion even today, after over a decade of propagandising by the expert propagandist Bishop Sanborn, and more recently by the equally expert polemicist Fr. Cekada.

The ten-second decision seems to take most sedevacantists ten years or more to come to. There's something wrong in there, obviously.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:00 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

Ergo, your offering of the Mass necessarily includes its union with Benedict. I find this argument convincing. Perhaps someone else can refute it, but as it stands, I find it convincing.

Mario, that's fine.

marioderksen wrote:

(3) Regarding "Uncle Wesley" - are we saying that if someone believed just like Uncle Wesley did, but never officially joined the Methodists (say he just frequented their services, while retaining the label "Catholic"), then a High Requiem Mass could be said for him?

This is irrelevant, but I think, yes, you possibly could (I am not sure, but I'm a long way from being sure that you could not do so). The point is that the various Wesleyan sects are held as heretical by the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo "sect" is not. It has never been judged or condemned, and we hope that its members remain Catholics (even if we doubt that most of them do so).

marioderksen wrote:

(4) What may have been difficult to see in 1967 is still a bit different forty years later.

What you are expressing here is exactly what many think but they decline to be explicit about, because it amounts to replacing the authority of the Church with private judgement, as long as the private judgement is given sufficient time to mature. I was tempted to point out the rich irony of Fr. Cekada referring in that article to Benedict as a usurper of an ecclesiastical office (which he is), whilst Fr. Cekada usurps the supreme authority of the Catholic Church himself and seeks to outlaw her entire public worship for many years, and most of it for decades.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:18 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

I would say that at the very least, Fr. Cekada has raised sufficient doubt to make the Una Cum Mass a doubtful affair, i.e., doubtfully licit to attend. But when in practical doubt, we must not act.

A doubtful law does not bind. Subjective doubts arising from, frankly superstitious, concerns of this nature are irrelevant. There is no relevant law, and the only one which Fr. Cekada even claims is relevant is the rubric forbidding the mention of an excommunicate in the diptychs. This rubric applies, obviously, only to the celebrant. The idea that a laymen ought to flee such a Mass because the celebrant is mistaken, in the layman's opinion, about the status of a heretic who has neither been condemned nor joined a condemned sect, and who is regarded as a Catholic by the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, is preposterous. Which is why nobody thought of this nonsense for so long after Vatican II.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:24 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

I don't believe that your objection holds, because the reason why the martyrs couldn't offer one grain of incense isn't simply that the Church had officially condemned the false gods or the false sect. The reason was that these false gods were, well, false gods. I don't think it was the Church's declaration that made it a mortal sin to offer incense to them - implying that, had the Church not done this, it would be permissible.

Your point is correct, but Vince's analogy holds. Benedict is not a false god. He is a heretic.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to. There are plenty such priests around, relatively speaking.

Well, there are in your country, but there are not elsewhere.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:29 am

Frank

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pmPosts: 73

eliz carroll wrote:

So that leaves us with how many options now? Are we being warned that we will not be saved if we assist at an "una cum" mass?

What should rich Catholics do with their spare cash, now that they can stay home ? How will they support the Church?

Personally I wouldn't give big donations to the SSPX or any groups recognizing Benedict XVI, not because I doubt the good they are doing. But simply I would hate schools and churches which my money helped build to be used to spread error and heresy if the SSPX ever entered an agreement with the Vatican.
However, I am not a rich catholic

Marioderksen,
St. Vincent Ferrer attended the Mass' of priests recognizing the false claimant for most of his life. Yet God still gave him the grace to perform miracles.
It is a law of the Catholic Church that I must sanctify Sunday by attendance at Holy Mass.
Fr. Cekada, despite all his logic and misapplication of principals, is unable to cite one law forbidding attendance at a catholic Mass, offered by a Catholic priest where a undeclared heretic is mentioned in the name of the canon. It's an error, for sure. But I am yet to see any official source that proves it makes the Mass illicit.
As far as I am concerned, my grave obligation to attend Mass far outweighs Fathers opinion.

I am so glad you have stopped by for a visit ! Hope all is well in yoour part of God's Vineyard.

Quote:

Hey Vince,

I don't believe that your objection holds, because the reason why the martyrs couldn't offer one grain of incense isn't simply that the Church had officially condemned the false gods or the false sect. The reason was that these false gods were, well, false gods. I don't think it was the Church's declaration that made it a mortal sin to offer incense to them - implying that, had the Church not done this, it would be permissible.

Excellent distinction, but I do find a problem with Fr. Cekada’s title, train of thought, and analogy . Indeed benedict is not passing himself off as a false god, but rather, he is passing himself off as a Catholic, and not just a catholic, but the Pope. Many well meaning catholics also think he is the pope, as does most of the world.

This is indeed not the same as " throwing" incense on the altar of a false god.......These are much more confusing times, don’t you think? And add the fact, at this point in time, Holy Mother Church has not ruled benedict a heretic.... nor the novus ordo heretical....

Granted, we have come to this conclusion privately. But does that make assisting at a SSPX Mass harmful if no other Mass is available? I think not.

Hope you have a grace filled Christmas !

In Xto,
Vincent

Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:10 am

eliz carroll

Hi Frank, Well, some of the niners used money from the SSPX faithful when they sued and were given some impressive properties that had belonged to the SSPX. The people who contributed to the SSPX intended their pennies to go for SSPX seminaries. So, in a roundabout(shall we say) way, you have got your wish without spending any money.

I think they might have been better to have imitated St. Francis of Assisi and had more faith in God's Providence.

Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:23 pm

Clement

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:43 pmPosts: 25

Hello Members,

I haven't read Father Cekada's article carefully enough to know whether or not I find his arguments convincing. Also, I doubt whether I am competent and knowledgeable enough to even evaluate whether all his arguments are correct.

Can anyone tell me though, if Fr. Cekada's opinion were to be correct where does that leave all the sedevacantists that have assisted at or offered una cum masses in the past? Were they always pernicious liars and guilty of all the other grave sins Father Cekada says?

If not, the sinfulness of sedevacantists attending or offering these masses must have a beginning somewhere. I can't just start calling someone a pernicious liar starting with the next mass he attends because I happened to have just read an article today by a priest that is convincing to me, surely? Or even more so, I can't start calling someone a pernicious liar because they have just read an article today by a priest that is not convincing to them, even more so. It must be more concrete than that. There must be some objective rule to go by or a date with meaning or something that is a fixed point where these masses became off limits and the sinning starts, so that we can correctly apply Father Cekada's judgments to all sedevacantists who have ever attended una cum masses as well as to the current attendees.

Has anybody any idea how all this works in the moral sphere so that I don't end up making false judgments about others but instead remain just and consistently just to all?

If I was to offer advice, it would be to get to Holy Mass and receive the sacraments as often as possible.

Mr. Lane, what you say about attending an "Indult" Mass if it's the only valid Mass available? In the context above it sounds like you would recommend doing so. Am I understanding you correctly?

Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:12 pm

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

marioderksen wrote:

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to.

And those sedevacantist priests who censure the SSPX clergy for mistakenly (and not pertinaciously) mentioning Benedict in the Canon, are their masses safe to attend? Or does their private excommunication of Catholics, in the absence of the Church having done so, and their insistence that other sedevacantists adopt their private condemnation under the pain of sin, constitute a grave enough concern about schism to consider attendance at their masses dangerous?

AMW

Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:30 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

AMWills wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to.

And those sedevacantist priests who censure the SSPX clergy for mistakenly (and not pertinaciously) mentioning Benedict in the Canon, are their masses safe to attend? Or does their private excommunication of Catholics, in the absence of the Church having done so, and their insistence that other sedevacantists adopt their private condemnation under the pain of sin, constitute a grave enough concern about schism to consider attendance at their masses dangerous?

AMW

Dear AMWills,

Are these real questions? I fail to see any good coming from comments like these...they are caustic and serve to do nothing but the opposite of what I assume is your good intention in writing them.

Robert

Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:35 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

AMWills wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to.

And those sedevacantist priests who censure the SSPX clergy for mistakenly (and not pertinaciously) mentioning Benedict in the Canon, are their masses safe to attend? Or does their private excommunication of Catholics, in the absence of the Church having done so, and their insistence that other sedevacantists adopt their private condemnation under the pain of sin, constitute a grave enough concern about schism to consider attendance at their masses dangerous?

AMW

According to Fr. Cekada's argument, as I understand it, whether or not the SSPX priest is in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant to the fact that he is offering Mass in union with a man that the sedevacantist believes to be a heretic/apostate. No sedevacantist priest I know of presumes to "excommunicate" SSPX adherents. Pointing out that it is illogical and morally wrong for a sedevacantist to assist at an una cum Mass can hardly be considered to raise concern about schism. It is a priest's duty to admonish the faithful if they are doing things that are objectively wrong. Fr. Cekada is simply doing that. Even if he turns out to be wrong, it would be absurd, in my opinion, to suggest that his position approaches schism. But this raises a larger issue, the issue of communion. Without a Pope, and without safe guidance from a living Church authority during these difficult times, as the years go by, it becomes more and more difficult to figure out with whom one is in communion. What about Novus Ordos in good faith? What about indultarians? Feeneyites? Etc. Ask an SSPX priest is he is in communion with Benedict XVI. I'd love to know what answer you get. I don't think they themselves really know whether they are or not. I think it's safe to say they are NOT in communion with him "in the same way" as they are with, say, Pope St. Pius X. But of course, Pope is Pope and you can't be in more or less communion with one or another of them.

But your point about Fr. Cekada's position possibly approaching schism does not hold, I believe, for the simple reason that a sedevacantist refusing to join in with an SSPX adherent in the una cum Mass is not a matter of refusal of communion with members of the Church per se but per accidens: It so happens that the sedevacantist believes he cannot go to this Mass without sinning - perhaps just like the SSPX adherent would object to going to a Mass without Benedict's name in the canon. But this is not a matter of refusal of communion, as the sedevacantist would be happy to join in the Rosary with his SSPX friend, for example.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:42 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Alessio Larrabee wrote:

Quote:

If I was to offer advice, it would be to get to Holy Mass and receive the sacraments as often as possible.

Mr. Lane, what you say about attending an "Indult" Mass if it's the only valid Mass available? In the context above it sounds like you would recommend doing so. Am I understanding you correctly?

No, I wouldn't, for the reasons that Indult clergy don't display the clear signs of sharing our Faith (such as resisting V2 etc.) which would reassure me that they do not constitute a danger - at least to children. And of course most of them these days are not priests anyway, as far as I can tell.

But if you knew that a priest was validly ordained, and his Faith was sound, then I don't think that the Indult would be a reason to avoid him. Not that the Indult exists anymore. Under the Motu Proprio the issue is moot. There are no conditions, so we are back to assessing each case on its merits, it would seem to me.

Fr. Lawrence Brey (RIP), a marvellous fighter for the Faith who never once offered the Novus Ordo Missae, somehow remained on "good" terms with his Novus bishop right until his death last year. Would that be a reason to avoid him? Obviously not.

Anyway, we need Mass and the sacraments. This is certain. We also need to avoid danger, as far as possible. But what is not required is to erect the kind of jerry-rigged ecclesiology evident in Fr. Cekada's article in order to "profess the Faith". I encourage you to go and read the Statement of Principles of the Oyster Bay Nine and see where any of this nonsense appears. Nowhere. Why not? According to the neo-sed position, it takes ten seconds to work it out...

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:45 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Robert Bastaja wrote:

Are these real questions? I fail to see any good coming from comments like these...they are caustic and serve to do nothing but the opposite of what I assume is your good intention in writing them.

Dear Robert,

I took them seriously. I don't think I'd assist at Mass offered by Bishop Sanborn, if I had an alternative.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

According to Fr. Cekada's argument, as I understand it, whether or not the SSPX priest is in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant to the fact that he is offering Mass in union with a man that the sedevacantist believes to be a heretic/apostate.

Mario, I think you mean the current argument. It keeps morphing. It used to be asserted that the Mass of a priest who mentions the reigning apostate as pope is objectively offensive to God - that He "holds His nose" against it. It is a "schismatic Mass" etc.

If Fr. Cekada wishes to distance himself from those assertions and focus purely on the subjective element, he may - by retracting his support for Bishop Sanborn's previous articles and withdrawing the current version of it from his own Web site. But until then, he must surely be thought to maintain the views he has previously supported, defended, and published.

marioderksen wrote:

No sedevacantist priest I know of presumes to "excommunicate" SSPX adherents.

Bishop Sanborn does. Ask him if he'll give communion to an "SSPXer."

marioderksen wrote:

Pointing out that it is illogical and morally wrong for a sedevacantist to assist at an una cum Mass can hardly be considered to raise concern about schism.

Sure, except that what is actually happening is that these men have come up with a score of reasons not to worship in common with fellow Catholics, some of which seem now to be fading away as unimportant, and new ones keep appearing. It wasn't about the "una cum" in 1983...

marioderksen wrote:

But this raises a larger issue, the issue of communion. Without a Pope, and without safe guidance from a living Church authority during these difficult times, as the years go by, it becomes more and more difficult to figure out with whom one is in communion. What about Novus Ordos in good faith? What about indultarians? Feeneyites? Etc. Ask an SSPX priest is he is in communion with Benedict XVI. I'd love to know what answer you get. I don't think they themselves really know whether they are or not. I think it's safe to say they are NOT in communion with him "in the same way" as they are with, say, Pope St. Pius X. But of course, Pope is Pope and you can't be in more or less communion with one or another of them.

It seems to me that your own position is as mysterious as that of the SSPX. Are you in communion with Novus Ordo attendees who are in good faith? If not, why not?

marioderksen wrote:

But your point about Fr. Cekada's position possibly approaching schism does not hold, I believe, for the simple reason that a sedevacantist refusing to join in with an SSPX adherent in the una cum Mass is not a matter of refusal of communion with members of the Church per se but per accidens:

Except that this is only this year's reason. Which makes any fair-minded and rational man ask, which reason is the real one?

marioderksen wrote:

It so happens that the sedevacantist believes he cannot go to this Mass without sinning

That isn't schism. You switched points halfway through your sentence. Preaching disunion is not the same as becoming a victim of confused thinking. The layman can do what he thinks best. The preacher is a source of danger, and is at best irresponsible.

marioderksen wrote:

perhaps just like the SSPX adherent would object to going to a Mass without Benedict's name in the canon. But this is not a matter of refusal of communion, as the sedevacantist would be happy to join in the Rosary with his SSPX friend, for example.

I fully agree.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:03 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Fr. Cekada and the Oyster Bay Nine, 1984, Statement of Principles:

10. Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.

Who has changed principles? The neo-sedevacantists. Neo-sedevacantism is just that - neo.

When they retract these original principles explicitly, we can take their new ones more seriously.

Second, Fr Cekada clearly states that the attendee of such a Mass participates in, and fully assents to, the Canon (+ the consequent affirmations).

Yes, I know. His problem is that despite the facile attraction of such an assertion, supported as it is by irrelevant quotes carefully sculpted from their context, [...] [edited for emphasis]

I would like to see Fr Cekada's points specifically rebutted by those who can. The above is a start, could it be expanded? And the others: on the theological and linguistic implications of plugging B16 in the una cum phrase, and the consequent implications of attending such a Mass.

If for a very weird reason, an SSPX priest were to replace B16 with one of the Patriarchs of the schismatic east (or Pius XIII or the leader of the Palmarians) in the una cum phrase, would Father Cekada's article hold good for such a Mass? It just

Father Cekada makes a case against the "resistance clergy," that they do not have the requisite deputation to dispense the sacraments, thus making their Masses "gravely illicit" and themselves, guilty of the sin of schism. You have access to the article. How right is he?

Are these clergy justified in their appeal to the principle of epikeia and supplied jurisdiction?

_________________Omnia ad Jesum per Mariam!

Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:13 pm

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

John Lane wrote:

Robert Bastaja wrote:

Are these real questions? I fail to see any good coming from comments like these...they are caustic and serve to do nothing but the opposite of what I assume is your good intention in writing them.

Dear Robert,

I took them seriously. I don't think I'd assist at Mass offered by Bishop Sanborn, if I had an alternative.

John,

I took them seriously as well. They are statements...not questions. It is my opinion that they play into what I believe you called "the party mentality". I think they are caustic, unecessary, and counterproductive.

John Lane wrote:

Quote:

Fr. Cekada and the Oyster Bay Nine, 1984, Statement of Principles:

10. Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.

Who has changed principles? The neo-sedevacantists. Neo-sedevacantism is just that - neo.

When they retract these original principles explicitly, we can take their new ones more seriously.

Yes, I agree. Then we can rest assured that those opinions we might deplore are just opinions.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:19 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

austinmarie wrote:

I would like to see Fr Cekada's points specifically rebutted by those who can.

Yes, it would be useful, although sadly it will further damage his credibility.

austinmarie wrote:

on the theological and linguistic implications of plugging B16 in the una cum phrase,

This was one of my favourite parts. Here is what has happened.

1. Most sedevacantists had no problem assisting at a Mass offered by a traditional Catholic priest, even if he thought the current antipope was actually pope.2. The Guerardians invented this novelty that the "una cum" clause actually means that "we offer the Mass in union with N." They employed the rather convenient linguistic accident of words as a kind of slogan, and described such Masses as "una cum Masses" and it became popular amongst their followers to say "I'm not offering my Mass together with Benedict..." All very clever marketing, but appallingly bad theology and linguistics. The key English-speaking event here was the mid-nineties publication by then-Fr. Sanborn of an article in Catholic Restoration.3. Father Sanborn subsequently received an unsolicited contributed article demolishing this falsehood, which he published, along with his own statement that he agreed with the conclusion. That should have been the end of that particular furphy, but it had taken on a life of its own.4. Fr. Sanborn replaced the original argument with a new one, which is the fact that the priest prays for the pope as pope is in itself a clear sign of communion with him. This was very amusing - the Guerardians seemed to think that they had discovered that the prayer for the pope was there at all, as if the reason that nobody had had an issue with it before they came along was that we hadn’t noticed it.5. Now Fr. Cekada tells us that it does not matter what the clause means explicitly, and presents four possible choices, as though the books don't tell us explicitly what it does mean, as though several popes cannot be quoted stating explicitly what it means. It's a prayer for the pope. He should accept this or he looks as though he likes the original furphy and doesn't want to disappoint the fans who haven't realised that it has been officially withdrawn from circulation.

Now, if we accept that this entire subject is a diversion from the real issue, we can settled down to consider what the real issue might be. I think that it turns on this question of whether the man in the pew is deemed to consent to all of the particular circumstances of the priest’s offering. Fr. Cekada has not found a relevant authority who says that the man in the pew necessarily agrees with the personal judgements of the priest, and nor will he ever find such an authority, I will wager.

What he will find, in spades, are quotes referring to the inclusion or exclusion of names from the diptychs. Almost every one of these quotes refers to the cases of condemned heretics. The sole exception that I have been able to discover to this rule is the following canon from the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Fourth Council of Constantinople): “No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”

So, the sole exception is a canon excommunicating anybody who leaves out the name of his bishop or patriarch prior to the judgement of the Church. Ask yourself why Fr. Cekada omitted to mention this ancient canon in his article, which he certainly knows about. See if you can come up with a reason why it isn’t relevant to the question at issue. I can’t.

While you’re asking these questions, please also keep firmly in view that Fr. Cekada took twenty or thirty years to come to his conclusion. Suggesting that it is obvious after ten seconds of reflection is therefore a form of self-deprecating humour on his part.

austinmarie wrote:

If for a very weird reason, an SSPX priest were to replace B16 with one of the Patriarchs of the schismatic east (or Pius XIII or the leader of the Palmarians) in the una cum phrase, would Father Cekada's article hold good for such a Mass?

For what weird reason? That’s the question. In any case, Fr. Cekada’s article would not “hold good” for any purpose at all, except as an example of what a learned and intelligent man can produce if he places his conclusion ahead of his reasoning.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:18 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

The options would be this one: A true priest offering a Catholic rite of Mass and not mentioning a heretic in the canon would be permissible to go to. There are plenty such priests around, relatively speaking.

Well, there are in your country, but there are not elsewhere.

That is true. However, I think we all agree that whether or not one can assist at an una cum Mass has nothing to do with how many sedevacantist clergy are around. Either it's permissible, or it's not. I don't think it's a matter of "only permissible if no sedevacantist priest is around."

Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:55 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

Mario, I think you mean the current argument. It keeps morphing. It used to be asserted that the Mass of a priest who mentions the reigning apostate as pope is objectively offensive to God - that He "holds His nose" against it. It is a "schismatic Mass" etc. If Fr. Cekada wishes to distance himself from those assertions and focus purely on the subjective element, he may - by retracting his support for Bishop Sanborn's previous articles and withdrawing the current version of it from his own Web site. But until then, he must surely be thought to maintain the views he has previously supported, defended, and published.

Of course I can't speak for Fr. Cekada, but this is not going to help us evaulate the arguments he has presented. It would be best, in my opinion, to tune out for a moment who wrote the article and just evaluate what is actually being argued.

Quote:

Sure, except that what is actually happening is that these men have come up with a score of reasons not to worship in common with fellow Catholics, some of which seem now to be fading away as unimportant, and new ones keep appearing. It wasn't about the "una cum" in 1983...

If Fr. Cekada were arguing that sedevacantists cannot pray with SSPXers, then I would say you have a point. However, Fr. Cekada's latest article is purely about the official worship of the Church conducted in union with Benedict XVI. This is not a matter (in my view), per se, of communicatio in sacris with people who believe Ratzinger to be the Pope. This is a matter of sedevacantists publicly acknowledging (by their actions) as Pope someone they insist is not the Pope but in fact a heretic/apostate.

Quote:

It seems to me that your own position is as mysterious as that of the SSPX. Are you in communion with Novus Ordo attendees who are in good faith? If not, why not?

John, I don't know. It probably depends on each individual Novus Ordo. I know Novus Ordos with whom I am in no wise in communion. I certainly know I am not in communion with Benedict XVI. Then there are some good souls who, though terribly misled, seek to be faithful to Catholic doctrine and want to disbelieve anything that is not true. Am I in communion with them? Tough call. But then again, I am not the one with a Master's in Divinity or Sacred Theology. That's for sedevacantist clerics to figure out, not me. The situation is very difficult, no doubt. But supposing that I *am* in communion with those trying-hard-to-be-faithful Novus Ordos, this does not mean I could assist at their Mass, whether it be Novus Ordo, indult/Motu, or Eastern rite. I could not in any way join the official prayer of their church.

Quote:

Except that this is only this year's reason. Which makes any fair-minded and rational man ask, which reason is the real one?

For me, the issue is dealing with what Fr. Cekada says, not with "the reason behind" Fr. Cekada's article. Because, at the end of the day, Fr. Cekada is making systematic arguments and presenting evidence for what he says. If he is wrong, that's where the error must be found - not in what Fr. may or may not have said twelve years ago.

Let me also state here that in no wise am I happy about una cum Masses being impermissible. I'd rather they be licit to go to, because that gives more people the chance to hear Mass. But you know how it is. If it's impermissible (as Fr. Cekada says), then there is no grace to be had there anyway (objectively speaking).

Quote:

The layman can do what he thinks best. The preacher is a source of danger, and is at best irresponsible.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Fr. Cekada is informing the layman about what to think. Priests do that all the time because they have the training, and laymen usually don't.

God bless,

Mario

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:16 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

Fr. Cekada and the Oyster Bay Nine, 1984, Statement of Principles:

10. Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.

Who has changed principles? The neo-sedevacantists. Neo-sedevacantism is just that - neo.

When they retract these original principles explicitly, we can take their new ones more seriously.

John, I don't think that there is a contradiction here. Fr. Cekada, to my knowledge, does not presume to bind your conscience, as though he said, "I, on my own authority, declare that you must believe Ratzo is not the Pope...." No, he simply says, "Here are the facts. These are the principles. This is the necessary conclusion." If you dispute either the facts or the principles, you can, but you must do so intelligently and sincerely. Fr. Cekada only argues that IF you realize these are the facts, and IF you realize these are the principles, then this is the conclusion you MUST draw," but not because he has authority, but because the force of reason is so strong. It's like saying, "If B follows from A, and you admit A, and you admit that B follows A, then you must say that B." That has nothing to do with authority. That's the kind of reasoning we employ in convincing someone to become Catholic in the first place -- no authority claimed or needed.

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:20 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

I think this whole issue can be dealt with very simply. Whoever disagrees with Fr. Cekada ought, as far as he can, present a point-by-point refutation of each of his arguments. That's the only way to deal with this. Fr. has a summary of his points at the end of his article, so it's easy not to lose track of what's being argued.

Quote:

What he will find, in spades, are quotes referring to the inclusion or exclusion of names from the diptychs. Almost every one of these quotes refers to the cases of condemned heretics. The sole exception that I have been able to discover to this rule is the following canon from the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Fourth Council of Constantinople): “No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”

I don't see how that's relevant. Fr. Cekada doesn't argue that sedevacantists can't assist at an una cum Mass because Ratzinger is guilty of an ecclesiastical crime.

Quote:

While you’re asking these questions, please also keep firmly in view that Fr. Cekada took twenty or thirty years to come to his conclusion. Suggesting that it is obvious after ten seconds of reflection is therefore a form of self-deprecating humour on his part.

Again, I don't think that's relevant. The question is whether or not a sedevacantist may assist at an una cum Mass, not whether Fr. Cekada took forever to figure it out.

Quote:

In any case, Fr. Cekada’s article would not “hold good” for any purpose at all, except as an example of what a learned and intelligent man can produce if he places his conclusion ahead of his reasoning.

I don't think that's fair. There is nothing in the article that I saw that suggests that Fr. placed his conclusion ahead of his reasoning. His conclusions follow from his premises, and if anyone disagrees, he needs to point out either a flaw in the logic or show that the premises are false.

Best,

Mario

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:42 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

I would say that at the very least, Fr. Cekada has raised sufficient doubt to make the Una Cum Mass a doubtful affair, i.e., doubtfully licit to attend. But when in practical doubt, we must not act.

A doubtful law does not bind. Subjective doubts arising from, frankly superstitious, concerns of this nature are irrelevant. There is no relevant law, and the only one which Fr. Cekada even claims is relevant is the rubric forbidding the mention of an excommunicate in the diptychs. This rubric applies, obviously, only to the celebrant. The idea that a laymen ought to flee such a Mass because the celebrant is mistaken, in the layman's opinion, about the status of a heretic who has neither been condemned nor joined a condemned sect, and who is regarded as a Catholic by the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, is preposterous. Which is why nobody thought of this nonsense for so long after Vatican II.

You say Benedict XVI is "regarded as a Catholic by the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church." I am confused. What hierarchy? You can't possibly mean the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Obviously, a bunch of modernists who are claiming ecclesiastical offices are not going to have a problem with another modernist's claims to another ecclesiastical office.

The essence of Fr. Cekada's argument has to do with what is objectively going on at an una cum Mass. It has nothing (nothing!) to do with the priest's own knowledge or sincerity or anything of the kind. Whether the priest is making a mistake or maliciously inserting the name of an impostor into the canon is irrelevant. The point is that the priest is offering the Mass in union with Benedict XVI as the Pope of the Catholic Church, the beacon of orthodoxy, the Supreme Authority of the Catholic Church, etc. Since the sedevacantist believes no such thing, it is objectively a sin for him to join in that Mass because he is ipso facto declaring that he agrees with the priest. Therefore, what he is doing through his actions is different from what is inside his mind, which is the essence of a lie (pardon the poor paraphrase, but I hope everyone understands what I mean). That is one of the arguments Fr. Cekada makes.

In Christ,

Mario

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:55 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

That is true. However, I think we all agree that whether or not one can assist at an una cum Mass has nothing to do with how many sedevacantist clergy are around. Either it's permissible, or it's not. I don't think it's a matter of "only permissible if no sedevacantist priest is around."

I disagree. One might conclude that it is a tolerable evil, in which case one would tolerate it only when necessary. It isn't my view, but it is one of the views one might reasonably form.

In any case, in my experience only those with the practical problem confonting them in some manner give the question its proper gravity. I have seen enough flippant faux-heroism from those who don't need to live without sacraments. I am also interested to note that neither Fr. Cekada nor Bishop Sanborn (almost the only dogmatic "anti-una-cum" clergy) has ever travelled to, for example, this country to serve the faithful. They leave that extremely arduous task to the CMRI, who don't even think it strictly necessary. I can't tell you how grand I think that effort is on the part of the CMRI priests. Absolutely magnificent.

On the other hand, as Christmas approaches Fr. Cekada pops out that absolute rubbish and sits serenely in Cincinnati without having to bear any consequences at all. The disunity amongst brethren, the loss of sacramental grace, and the disordered thinking, all flowing from his Guerard-originated novelty, are each of them great evils. If he'd been on a plane to Australia a few times over the past few years it might have sharpened his wits and ultimately, saved him bearing the responsibility for the fruits of these actions.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:56 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

The point is that the various Wesleyan sects are held as heretical by the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo "sect" is not. It has never been judged or condemned, and we hope that its members remain Catholics (even if we doubt that most of them do so).

OK about the Wesleyan sects. What about the "Fourteenth True Church of God in Christ Jesus" that just opened down the street and was founded in 2002? Besides, is there an official guide that lists all the sects and people the Church has condemned by name? It seems this is rather important to have.

Quote:

What you are expressing here is exactly what many think but they decline to be explicit about, because it amounts to replacing the authority of the Church with private judgement, as long as the private judgement is given sufficient time to mature. I was tempted to point out the rich irony of Fr. Cekada referring in that article to Benedict as a usurper of an ecclesiastical office (which he is), whilst Fr. Cekada usurps the supreme authority of the Catholic Church himself and seeks to outlaw her entire public worship for many years, and most of it for decades.

John, I think all Fr. Cekada is doing is showing where logic leads when you look at the facts and the relevant teachings and principles. Since the sedevacantist admits the same facts, and the principles are what they are, the sedevacantist is bound to conclude what Fr. Cekada concludes. That is his argument. If someone says the conclusion is false, he must show why it is false. This has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with usurping anything.

Merry Christmas,
Mario

Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:02 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

Of course I can't speak for Fr. Cekada, but this is not going to help us evaulate the arguments he has presented. It would be best, in my opinion, to tune out for a moment who wrote the article and just evaluate what is actually being argued.

No, I disagree here too. Mario, the reason people take this complete junk seriously is because of who wrote it. If an unknown layman had put it out, most people would see how shoddy it is. Instead, they read it with a positive prejudice. It is therefore useful for truth to highlight that the fact that Fr. Cekada has shifted position and taken decades to do so, despite his incredible comments now to the effect that it’s a no-brainer. The message is, take him seriously on this question at your peril.

marioderksen wrote:

Quote:

It seems to me that your own position is as mysterious as that of the SSPX. Are you in communion with Novus Ordo attendees who are in good faith? If not, why not?

John, I don't know. It probably depends on each individual Novus Ordo. I know Novus Ordos with whom I am in no wise in communion. I certainly know I am not in communion with Benedict XVI. Then there are some good souls who, though terribly misled, seek to be faithful to Catholic doctrine and want to disbelieve anything that is not true. Am I in communion with them? Tough call. But then again, I am not the one with a Master's in Divinity or Sacred Theology. That's for sedevacantist clerics to figure out, not me. The situation is very difficult, no doubt. But supposing that I *am* in communion with those trying-hard-to-be-faithful Novus Ordos, this does not mean I could assist at their Mass, whether it be Novus Ordo, indult/Motu, or Eastern rite. I could not in any way join the official prayer of their church.

Well, an Eastern Rite Mass offered by a Catholic priest who happens to think that Benedict is pope would be on a level with a Latin Rite Mass offered by a Catholic priest who happens to think that Benedict is pope. The same issues would arise in either case. And false worship, such as the Novus Ordo, is forbidden on its own grounds – i.e. because it is false worship.

If I recall, you posed the question whether the SSPX are in communion with Novus Ordo attendees. I understood you to be criticising their ecclesiology. It's not that I think their ecclesiology is beyond criticism, of course, but merely that I don't know anybody who has a non-mysterious ecclesiology right now. Ours has its mysteries, as does theirs. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn have a heretical one, as I've pointed out. They argue that the Church offered no objectively acceptable worship for many years. Your own candour concerning the Novus Ordo attendees is appreciated, and I trust you see the implications for ecclesiology.

marioderksen wrote:

Quote:

Except that this is only this year's reason. Which makes any fair-minded and rational man ask, which reason is the real one?

If he is wrong, that's where the error must be found - not in what Fr. may or may not have said twelve years ago.

Bishop Sanborn's article was still on traditionalmass.org last time I checked. And it isn't a question of what somebody said years ago, it is a question of intellectual integrity. If you're shifting positions, say so. The neo-sedevacantists have never admitted to a change of position, which gives them a grossly unfair advantage with people who think their new position sounds reasonable. They ought to say why they didn't find it convincing for decades before. Further, and similarly, they ought to retract heretical positions they no longer subscribe to, if they no longer subscribe to them. This is strictly necessary in justice. It is not optional. Otherwise we are entitled to observe that their hatred of heresy only extends to errors made by others.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:54 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

OK about the Wesleyan sects. What about the "Fourteenth True Church of God in Christ Jesus" that just opened down the street and was founded in 2002? Besides, is there an official guide that lists all the sects and people the Church has condemned by name? It seems this is rather important to have.

Mario, the distinction I make is fundamental in law. If you’re not familiar with it, well, I am very surprised.

The notion of a sect is incorporated in Canon 2314 (the one dealing with penalties for heresy etc.), and is absolutely crucial to understanding the mind of the Church, and it leads to wide-ranging differences in the manner in which individuals are treated by the Church. I will try and find time to post some texts later.

In the mean time, note that no traditional priest treats the “Novus Ordo” as a sect for canonical purposes. At least, none of whom I am aware. Bishop Sanborn is heading down that path, with his refusal of sacraments to SSPXers – it is certainly the thinking behind his actions, as far as I can tell. But he is not there yet, unless he has begun to demand an abjuration of error from all new arrivals from the Novus Ordo.

Let me summarise the point: If Fr. Cekada denies the relevance of this distinction in this context, then let him abandon all pretence that he is concerned about the “una cum” clause and openly confess that his real agenda is to treat the Novus Ordo milieu as if it were canonically a sect. That will change everything – including of course whether it is lawful to assist at Mass offered by a “member” of it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:49 pm

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

marioderksen wrote:

That is true. However, I think we all agree that whether or not one can assist at an una cum Mass has nothing to do with how many sedevacantist clergy are around. Either it's permissible, or it's not. I don't think it's a matter of "only permissible if no sedevacantist priest is around."

I disagree. One might conclude that it is a tolerable evil, in which case one would tolerate it only when necessary. It isn't my view, but it is one of the views one might reasonably form.

In any case, in my experience only those with the practical problem confonting them in some manner give the question its proper gravity. I have seen enough flippant faux-heroism from those who don't need to live without sacraments. I am also interested to note that neither Fr. Cekada nor Bishop Sanborn (almost the only dogmatic "anti-una-cum" clergy) has ever travelled to, for example, this country to serve the faithful. They leave that extremely arduous task to the CMRI, who don't even think it strictly necessary. I can't tell you how grand I think that effort is on the part of the CMRI priests. Absolutely magnificent.

On the other hand, as Christmas approaches Fr. Cekada pops out that absolute rubbish and sits serenely in Cincinnati without having to bear any consequences at all. The disunity amongst brethren, the loss of sacramental grace, and the disordered thinking, all flowing from his Guerard-originated novelty, are each of them great evils. If he'd been on a plane to Australia a few times over the past few years it might have sharpened his wits and ultimately, saved him bearing the responsibility for the fruits of these actions.

I am very sad that the situation with(out) the sacraments is so grave in Australia. Why don't you issue an open invitation to sedevacantist clergy to travel to Australia. However, I still look at this as not being really relevant to the problem at hand. If what the article says is wrong, it can be refuted. Please do not think that just because I have a sedevacantist Mass available, therefore all is well. It is now, but you never know, circumstances in my life can change and I might end up only with an "una cum" Mass in my area. Then I want to know what the right thing to do is. In other words, this concerns all of us, for any one of us might at one point be faced with this problem.

As for the "tolerable evil," I understand what you're saying but am not sure it is applicable to assisting at an una cum Mass because I don't understand the idea of the Holy Mass being offered in a circumstantially evil way. It is either licit to assist or not. Can you give me an example, an analogy, drawn from similar cases in Church history perhaps?

Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:05 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

John Lane wrote:

No, I disagree here too. Mario, the reason people take this complete junk seriously is because of who wrote it. If an unknown layman had put it out, most people would see how shoddy it is. Instead, they read it with a positive prejudice. It is therefore useful for truth to highlight that the fact that Fr. Cekada has shifted position and taken decades to do so, despite his incredible comments now to the effect that it’s a no-brainer. The message is, take him seriously on this question at your peril.

But if we can't discuss things anymore on the basis of arguments themselves, what is left for us to go on? I'm sorry, but I have not yet seen how this is "complete junk." I think it's possible that Fr. Cekada is wrong, but I'd like to see it demonstrated. I personally have no advantage whatsoever from una cum Masses being illict to attend. I really don't care which side is true - I just want to know which.

Quote:

Well, an Eastern Rite Mass offered by a Catholic priest who happens to think that Benedict is pope would be on a level with a Latin Rite Mass offered by a Catholic priest who happens to think that Benedict is pope. The same issues would arise in either case. And false worship, such as the Novus Ordo, is forbidden on its own grounds – i.e. because it is false worship.

But what if it's worship approved by the Pope? I don't understand how you can make one (rejection of what they believe to be a papally-approved rite of Mass) a requirement to be a genuine traditional Catholic, but not the other (rejection of a heretic as Pope).

Quote:

If I recall, you posed the question whether the SSPX are in communion with Novus Ordo attendees.

No, that is a misunderstanding. I raised the question whether the SSPX clergy are in communion with Benedict XVI. And I mean real communion, the way Catholic teaching requires one to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. I don't think they can give a straight answer on that.

Quote:

Bishop Sanborn's article was still on traditionalmass.org last time I checked. And it isn't a question of what somebody said years ago, it is a question of intellectual integrity. If you're shifting positions, say so. The neo-sedevacantists have never admitted to a change of position, which gives them a grossly unfair advantage with people who think their new position sounds reasonable. They ought to say why they didn't find it convincing for decades before. Further, and similarly, they ought to retract heretical positions they no longer subscribe to, if they no longer subscribe to them. This is strictly necessary in justice. It is not optional. Otherwise we are entitled to observe that their hatred of heresy only extends to errors made by others.

And I think that's a fair objection that you raise here. I am not much familiar with previous positions and such, and as for right now I am only interested in the objective evidence for or against the una cum Mass.

God bless.

Mario

Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:34 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

I think this whole issue can be dealt with very simply. Whoever disagrees with Fr. Cekada ought, as far as he can, present a point-by-point refutation of each of his arguments. That's the only way to deal with this.

Mario,

No, that is not required at all. It’s complete junk, without any merit at all, and proves nothing. I have a life to lead, duties to perform, and more important things to do even when my duties are exhausted, such as tidying my desk or trimming my rose bushes.

The point is this: If you find it convincing, then I am sorry for you and I hope it has no negative effects upon you, and in the brief amount of time I have spare I will try and assist you to see more clearly. But a point-by-point refutation would only dignify this work beyond its value.

marioderksen wrote:

Fr. has a summary of his points at the end of his article, so it's easy not to lose track of what's being argued.

Exactly, so let’s quickly run through the points and comment on them, in order to see why the whole thing doesn’t demand a substantive response.

Fr. Cekada wrote:

(I) The Meaning of the Prayer. What, first of all, does the prayer mean? From the perspective of linguistic meaning, putting Ratzinger’s name into the una cum in the Canon affirms not only that he is a true pope, but also that he is a member of the true Church.The sedevacantist firmly rejects both propositions, especially because the canonists and theologians cited to support sedevacantism state that the loss of the pontificate in a heretical pope is produced by his loss of membership in the Church.The standard theological meanings attached to the una cum produce still more problems for the sedevacantist. These affirm that the heretic/false pope Ratzinger is head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, the principle of unity, and our authorized intermediary with Almighty God. The mention of the heretic’s name is “proof of the orthodoxy” of those who offer the Mass, and a sign they “are not separated from communion with the universal Church.” Each and every one of those propositions a sedevacantist would consider a theological horror, if not near-blasphemous.

I accept all of this, but it is all utterly irrelevant. These are arguments in favour of the priest omitting the name of Benedict from the Te igitur, not reasons for a layman to stay home alone. Unless, of course, the layman is deemed by some theological or canonical principle to be consenting to that naming of Benedict as pope. But that’s the whole ground of dispute, as Fr. Cekada well knows. Therefore his recitation of all of this material is either the fruit of a profound misunderstanding of the real issue which divides us, or a psychological tactic designed to prejudice the reader. And I add, the latter alternative interpretation is bolstered by his tendentious inclusion of the Fr. Faber quote at the end of his article, as if to say, “If you’re not sufficiently horrified by Benedict’s name being included in the Te igitur, you don’t really hate heresy, and you’re not holy.”

To which I reply, I am not holy and I acknowledge and accept Fr. Cekada’s claim that he is a man of principle and has been since he was fourteen years old, but he is still clearly wrong on the point here and it would be a pernicious lie on my part to say anything else.

Fr. Cekada wrote:

(II) Your Participation and Consent. A sedevacantist who assists at an una cum Mass cannot credibly maintain that he “withholds consent” from the odious phrase.

Fr. Cekada finally gets to the point, but even here he continues to try to prejudice the reader, attempting to render ridiculous the standard response of sedevacantists for decades – tagging it as something which cannot credibly be maintained. Well, he is arguing against fact. It was “credibly maintained” by numerous sedevacantists, indeed most of them, including himself for decades, and is still maintained by almost all sedevacantist clerics; and it was “credibly maintained” by such lay sedevacantist luminaries as the late, great, William Morgan and others, as he well knows. I pause merely to highlight his contempt for them all.

Fr. Cekada wrote:

We enumerated at least nine ways in which a Catholic actively participates at a traditional Mass when it is celebrated. Each of these constitutes a true form of active participation, which in turn (according to the theologians we cited) constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”

Note in passing that Fr. Cekada, despite his apparent keen interest in the exact nature of “worship in common” has managed to err in stating that receiving a sacrament is not a form of worship in common, which it notoriously is. He wrote, “The issue of the reception of a sacrament, however, is distinct from the one I have addressed above: active participation in common public worship, specifically, the Mass.” Whatever distinction there is between them, it is not what Fr. Cekada states: both are public worship in common, as he should know.

I do not dispute that the layman consents to the acts of the priest, considered formally. I offer the common oblation with him. I agree with what he does at the altar. If I didn’t, I might as well not go at all. The specific point is, however, whether or not I am necessarily agreeing with every detail of the priest’s actions - specifically, those accidental matters. If he habitually forgets the “Orate fratres”, for example, am I required to protest out loud in order to exculpate myself from “deemed consent” to his mistake? The whole proposition is off in fairy-land away from the concrete realities of this world, which is why the “problem” didn’t occur until the famously abstract and theoretical Guerard des Lauriers theorised his way to it.

But, you will perhaps say, the inclusion or exclusion of the reigning pope’s name has always been regarded as a touchstone of ecclesial communion, so is it not vastly more important than any other mistake the celebrant might make?

Yes and no. Yes, it’s important, but no, it doesn’t require the layman in the pew to stay home alone rather be present when the priest errs. The Church has not judged the question, so that the priest’s inclusion of the name is a sign that he wishes only to belong to the Catholic Church, whereas if the Church had excluded Benedict from her communion the priest who continued to include his name would show by that act that he rejected her authority. This was true in every single case of controversy over the inclusion or exclusion of a name in the diptychs in the ancient Church. It was the authority of the Church that was at issue. This was true particularly in the case that Fr. Cekada cites of the Rule or Formula of St. Hormisdas. So much was it clear that the crucial issue was subjection to the Roman Pontiff, who is infallible, that the Rule is regarded as a solemn definition of that truth by at least some dogmatic theologians. In Deferrari’s translation of Denzinger the Rule of St. Hormisdas is placed under the subtitle, “The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.” This is also how it is referenced in the systematic index. Van Noort gives it as one of his proofs of infallibility, and when he quotes it he entirely omits all mention of heretics and their names, or of the diptychs or the liturgy. (“Christ’s Church, p. 300). He includes only those parts which state that to maintain the true Faith one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff as one’s immediate rule of Faith. The point is entirely clear – the omission of a name from the diptychs is a clear sign of subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the acceptance of his decisions. In this context it is also interesting to note that the Fourth Council of Constantinople adopted the Rule of St. Hormisdas as its own profession of Faith, and yet promulgated a canon explicitly prohibiting any cleric from omitting the name of his patriarch or bishop from the diptychs prior to the judgement of the Church. In other words, the mind of the Church on this point is clear – do what she explicitly ordains, and don’t act as vigilante.

It is therefore richly ironic that Fr. Cekada should find in this particular text a basis for anathematising the Sacrifices of those priests who fail to agree with him in omitting the name of Benedict from the Te igitur. It is as though he wished to prove himself wrong.

I add that in any case I do actually consent to the priest’s act in naming Benedict, insofar as he intends by it to show his communion with the Catholic Church. To apply Bishop Sanborn's favourite distinction, I accept and consent to the priest's act considered formally (i.e. as an expression of communion with the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Church) but I reject his act considered accidentally (i.e. he is mistaken about the actual identity of the Roman Pontiff).

That Fr. Cekada is forced to argue that such recognition by the sedeplenist priest implies necessarily that the priest accepts Vatican II, despite the fact that he openly and vigorously denounces Vatican II – well, he has been reading too much Guerard. In the real world we accept that men who say that they reject Vatican II, and whose entire lives give testament to the fact, really do reject Vatican II. The relevant principle is the one from St. Thomas that heads up my article on this question: “For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental.”

When the priest mentions Benedict’s name, his intention is to continue rejecting Vatican II and all of its consequent horrors, whilst ensuring that he remains in communion with the Catholic Church, of which he mistakenly identifies Benedict as visible head. None of this is really controversial, in that Fr. Cekada fully accepts its truth. What he maintains is that despite the priest’s real intention, his words must be taken as contradicting his own mind and must specify the act. In other words, contrary to the Angelic Doctor, Fr. Cekada takes the non-intentional and makes it specify the act. This can be seen even more clearly in that horrible and chaotic presentation on schism, which he has essentially borrowed from Bishop Sanborn (i.e. the “either way you slice it” argument).

With errors of this fundamental a nature, there is nothing to be done. I don’t even think one could have a sensible discussion about it with them.

So you see, Mario, why entering into a point-by-point refutation of this article would, to my mind, be a pointless exercise. It doesn't spend much of its voluminous space addressing the real issue, and when it does, it places the entire question on a false footing, so that the erroneous conclusion is inevitable.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:12 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

Vince Sheridan wrote:

Excellent distinction, but I do find a problem with Fr. Cekada’s title, train of thought, and analogy . Indeed benedict is not passing himself off as a false god, but rather, he is passing himself off as a Catholic, and not just a catholic, but the Pope. Many well meaning catholics also think he is the pope, as does most of the world.

I understand, but I think Fr. Cekada's use of the "incense" analogy is meant to be understood figuratively. In other words, he's not saying that Benedict is claiming to be divine and sedes who assist at an una cum Mass adore him. Rather, he wants to drive home that in similar fashion as true Catholics were once tempted to offer a grain (just one!) of incense to a false deity, so true Catholics today are being tempted to give Ratzinger just one teeny-tiny little bit of acknowledgement that his papal claim is legitimate. And just as even one grain of incense was morally impermissible, so even one una cum Mass is illicit for the sedevacantist to attend. I think that's what Fr. is trying to say by means of this analogy. Again, one may say that his arguments are flawed, but then that's a separate issue. I don't think the analogy with the incense if flawed or even exaggerated. I think it's a "tough" one - Father is playing hardball, no doubt - but sometimes a blunt analogy like that is useful into shaking people into reality, as in, "Hey, this is really serious!" I don't think the fact that these are, of course, very confusing times has anything to do with Fr.'s article. Remember that it is addressed to people who are already sedevacantists and already insist that Ratzo is not the Pope. The article is not addressed to people who are confused about that issue.

God bless,

Mario

Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:20 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

Quote:

What he will find, in spades, are quotes referring to the inclusion or exclusion of names from the diptychs. Almost every one of these quotes refers to the cases of condemned heretics. The sole exception that I have been able to discover to this rule is the following canon from the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Fourth Council of Constantinople): “No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”

I don't see how that's relevant. Fr. Cekada doesn't argue that sedevacantists can't assist at an una cum Mass because Ratzinger is guilty of an ecclesiastical crime.

Fr. Cekada says that because Benedict is a heretic, his name ought to be omitted and if it isn’t, one may not assist at the Mass. The Fourth Council of Constantinople prohibited the omission of any hierarch’s name from the diptychs, for any reason, prior to the judgement of the Church. You are mistaken if you think that the Council intended to exclude heresy as one of the “grave crimes” it had in view. If anything, that was the main one it had in view.

Now, that canon is no longer in force, and I think it is certainly permissible to omit Benedict’s name, and indeed I think it better to do so. But his status has not been determined by public authority, and therefore we must grant others their proper liberty.

marioderksen wrote:

John Lane wrote:

The idea that a laymen ought to flee such a Mass because the celebrant is mistaken, in the layman's opinion, about the status of a heretic who has neither been condemned nor joined a condemned sect, and who is regarded as a Catholic by the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, is preposterous. Which is why nobody thought of this nonsense for so long after Vatican II.

You say Benedict XVI is "regarded as a Catholic by the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church." I am confused. What hierarchy? You can't possibly mean the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Obviously, a bunch of modernists who are claiming ecclesiastical offices are not going to have a problem with another modernist's claims to another ecclesiastical office.

All that I was pointing out is that not a single bishop of the Catholic Church has ever declared the See of Rome vacant since the start of this crisis. Not in 1967, not in 1977, not in 1987, nor even as late as 1997, and clearly not yet in 2007 either. Forty years, and not a single ordinary has publicly come to the conclusion that the See of Rome is vacant. I agree that the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo are not, taken as a body at least, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but leaving aside the mystery that this presents in itself, the fact remains that for any Catholic the absence of any public judgement at all is a very important point. I am trying to drag you back to the concrete world in which nobody came up with this rubbish until the 1980s, and then no sedevacantists seemed to have adopted it until the 1990s, and that even today most sedevacantist clergy don’t accept it. This is a gigantic fact which demands explanation.

Fr. Cekada, in line with his very cheeky reversal of the onus of proof, as though we must justify what nobody can show is forbidden, says that he hasn’t seen any decent arguments from other priests who fail to agree with the Guerardians. Well, neither have I. I don’t think any priest has ever bothered to address the non-arguments of Bishop Sanborn, and this would be because they don’t feel that they require answering. If I were Fr. Cekada, I wouldn’t be highlighting this.

Fr. Cekada says that because Benedict is a heretic, his name ought to be omitted and if it isn’t, one may not assist at the Mass. The Fourth Council of Constantinople prohibited the omission of any hierarch’s name from the diptychs, for any reason, prior to the judgement of the Church. You are mistaken if you think that the Council intended to exclude heresy as one of the “grave crimes” it had in view. If anything, that was the main one it had in view.

I didn't think that Fr.'s argument was based on heresy considered as a crime against canon law but rather as a sin against God that ipso facto cuts oneself off from the Church.

Quote:

But his status has not been determined by public authority, and therefore we must grant others their proper liberty.

But Fr.'s article isn't about denying others their liberty in this matter. It's about sedevacantists doing something that they themselves must find sinful.

John Lane wrote:

All that I was pointing out is that not a single bishop of the Catholic Church has ever declared the See of Rome vacant since the start of this crisis. Not in 1967, not in 1977, not in 1987, nor even as late as 1997, and clearly not yet in 2007 either.

Bp. Ngo-Dinh-Thuc did in 1982.

Quote:

Forty years, and not a single ordinary has publicly come to the conclusion that the See of Rome is vacant.

Then, John, perhaps it's better that you and I not conclude it either? If this argument proves anything, it proves that we shouldn't presume to conclude what no ordinary bishop of the Church ever concluded (publicly).

Quote:

I am trying to drag you back to the concrete world in which nobody came up with this rubbish until the 1980s, and then no sedevacantists seemed to have adopted it until the 1990s, and that even today most sedevacantist clergy don’t accept it. This is a gigantic fact which demands explanation.

I understand and don't consider this irrelevant, but at the end of the day, it's not as important as what the facts actually bear out. For example, we all agree Vatican II contained heresy. Why didn't Padre Pio say that? I have no idea - but I'm not going to spend the rest of my days looking for explanations for why or how the Church got to where she is, because I won't be able to explain it. I don't know how anyone could believe Paul VI to be a Catholic after reading his speech to the United Nations in 1965. Yet, things are what they are. I'm interested in facts, principles, and necessary conclusions. There are a lot of things we can't explain - for example, how 2,000+ bishops (mostly orthodox, one would think, and well trained in theology) could agree to the documents of Vatican II. I really don't know. But if we want to go down that road with logical consistency, I fear we will end up right in Novus Ordo Land.

Mario

Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:03 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

To my limited mind, Father Cekada has undermined his many of his previous writings--most notably his writings against the new rite of Episcopal Consecration--with this current document on assisting at the "Una Cum Mass".

It seems to me that Mr. Lane has adequately refuted Father Cekada's contention especially in the way he has condemned the method of culling certain aspects from writings and laws that tend to make his point and ignoring all writings and laws that tend not to make his point. It now raises questions in my mind as to the validity of the arguments he used to declare Episcopal Consecrations in the new rites "utterly null and void".

The Fourth Council of Constantinople prohibited the omission of any hierarch’s name from the diptychs, for any reason, prior to the judgement of the Church. You are mistaken if you think that the Council intended to exclude heresy as one of the “grave crimes” it had in view. If anything, that was the main one it had in view.

Mr. Lane, I don't follow your reasoning here. The text doesn't seem to apply to a heretic claimant. By its very words, it applies to a hierarch, not a pseudo-hierarch. Benedict never was a hierarch because he was ineligible to be such, long before his "election". This particular thread of argument seems to be completely irrelevant.

Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:40 am

marioderksen

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pmPosts: 68Location: Ohio, USA

TKGS wrote:

To my limited mind, Father Cekada has undermined his many of his previous writings--most notably his writings against the new rite of Episcopal Consecration--with this current document on assisting at the "Una Cum Mass".

It seems to me that Mr. Lane has adequately refuted Father Cekada's contention especially in the way he has condemned the method of culling certain aspects from writings and laws that tend to make his point and ignoring all writings and laws that tend not to make his point. It now raises questions in my mind as to the validity of the arguments he used to declare Episcopal Consecrations in the new rites "utterly null and void".

I simply don't know what to think.

In my opinion, the only way to figure out the truth then is to present a refutation. Write (or have someone write) an essay arguing just as systematically but coming to the opposite conclusion. I would love to see it. I really don't care which side is right - but I want to know which. People who disagreed with Fr. Cekada on the new rite of episcopal consecration wrote articles arguing against his. That's the only fruitful way to do it, I believe - the "dialectical" way.

Mario

Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:00 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

marioderksen wrote:

I didn't think that Fr.'s argument was based on heresy considered as a crime against canon law but rather as a sin against God that ipso facto cuts oneself off from the Church.

I think you need to review this exchange. We seem to be at cross-purposes.

marioderksen wrote:

But Fr.'s article isn't about denying others their liberty in this matter. It's about sedevacantists doing something that they themselves must find sinful.

Once again, you're not understanding the terms being used. To say that something is unlawful is to put it beyond the pale of liberty. And in any case, Bishop Sanborn does actually deny others Holy Communion based on this nonsense, so he is certainly acting unjustly and denying others their rights. Fr. Cekada has never shown any sign of disapproving of this evil, tyrannical behaviour, and his public agreement with Bp. Sanborn on the question at issue means that his silence on the refusal of Communion is a form of consent. I don't think this is really disputable.

marioderksen wrote:

Bp. Ngo-Dinh-Thuc did in 1982.

Considering the circumstances, I don't yet accept that this was a free and properly considered act, but let's leave that aside for the sake of the argument.

If you think that adhering to Vatican II resulted in the loss of office, Thuc was not an ordinary in 1982. If you don't agree that he lost his office, then you evidently grant an extraordinary degree of liberty to bishops to maintain heterodox ideas without losing their offices.

marioderksen wrote:

Then, John, perhaps it's better that you and I not conclude it either? If this argument proves anything, it proves that we shouldn't presume to conclude what no ordinary bishop of the Church ever concluded (publicly).

Not at all, it merely proves that the matter is a legitimately disputed question. That is, it is lawful to take either side. The history of the Church is filled with examples of these, particularly in theology but also in questions of fact during crises, and it is also filled with examples of "Bishop Sanborns" who refused to accept the situation and wished to impose their own judgements on everybody else.

marioderksen wrote:

For example, we all agree Vatican II contained heresy. Why didn't Padre Pio say that? I have no idea - but I'm not going to spend the rest of my days looking for explanations for why ...

Well, how about because there was any actual heresy, only error? That would explain why even the orthodox men never used the "h" word during the Council or afterwards. And by considering this as the real explanation, you'd show a diffidence that is as precious as it is rare these days, and it would enable you to think well of those who differ with you as well as assisting you to innoculate yourself against neo-sedevacantism.

marioderksen wrote:

I'm interested in facts, principles, and necessary conclusions. There are a lot of things we can't explain - for example, how 2,000+ bishops (mostly orthodox, one would think, and well trained in theology) could agree to the documents of Vatican II. I really don't know. But if we want to go down that road with logical consistency, I fear we will end up right in Novus Ordo Land.

I agree entirely with you, and that is why the political campaign of Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, absent as it is of any logic or consistency, is so terrible.

Ask yourself why Fr. Cekada needs to flatter the reader and then reverse the onus of proof, before he gets to his arguments.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:03 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Alessio Larrabee wrote:

Mr. Lane, I don't follow your reasoning here. The text doesn't seem to apply to a heretic claimant. By its very words, it applies to a hierarch, not a pseudo-hierarch. Benedict never was a hierarch because he was ineligible to be such, long before his "election". This particular thread of argument seems to be completely irrelevant.

No problem, Alessio. Just apply it to Paul VI.

And in any case, we are trying to understand the mind of the Church. That canon is evidence of her mind.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum